|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 24 2017 11:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 11:47 zlefin wrote:On June 24 2017 11:38 Plansix wrote:
It has to be one of the most colorful, doubt ridden elections in US history. Bush v Gore got nothing on this shit. Claiming otherwise is just denying history. Trump won, but he sowed the seeds of doubt the entire way just in case he didn't And had Clinton won, we would see the exact same thing. Nevuk is right that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. This is the brand of politics we have chosen for ourselves. Until both parties start running better candidates at all levels of government, this is what we get. The elite, monied liberals of Pelosi vs Rand loving Frat boys of Ryan. McConnell vs Schumer, in a death lock of shitty bills drafted in secret vs the dumbest floor sign in history. If people truly want better candidates, they should vote for them more. We have what we have in considerable part because that's what people vote for. Yes, I did just say that.
oops, I missed that line.
|
The only worse timeline for the GOP than the current one are if Hillary won and was assassinated during her inauguration by Steve Bannon wearing third Reich memorabilia and carrying signed orders from McConnell and Ryan ordering him to carry it out. Or if she died of a stroke an hour after inauguration, that would also have ruined their plans. I honestly can't think of a way Hillary could have won and lived that wouldn't have helped republicans in the mid-long term.
|
It's not news to Russia that the US is trying to plant cyber weapons somewhere in its infrastructure; and WaPo withheld more specific details at the government's request. Meanwhile Trump allowed ISIS to identify a specific source in Raqqa.
Trump is the most lucky presidential election winner ever; and he's a con and an incompetent. He doesn't even know that the healthcare bill is being pursued with a 51 rather than 60 vote passage in the Senate. Let's be clear: Republicans have no viable excuse for electing Trump. They have been conned by a con man who may as well have been in the three stooges.
|
I guess, if we look on the bright side, one positive from Trump's victory is that people are actually talking about health care in the United States. If Hillary had won, as others have pointed out, Republicans would still be running on "repeal ACA" and vowing to make sure that Hillary is a "one-term president" and that they will make sure she gets absolutely nothing done in her term.
The discussion caused by the realization that without healthcare, people won't have healthcare, seems to have made some people who previously opposed the ACA change their tune.
There may possibly be a similar silver lining to the storm cloud of immigration policy, though it's not as clear. And maybe US citizens are ever so slightly more politically involved now, which I think (hope) may be a net good.
|
Honestly, when political engagement is low is when the US functions best as a country. It means things are going well enough that not everyone has to care. People bemoaned lower engagement in the 90s, but our highest turnouts were in the 1870-1890 robber baron era and were replete with massive upticks in violence from all sides.
There's all these "please vote" campaigns, but honestly a good 50% of the country isn't informed enough to vote (and that's not a partisan issue, both sides have plenty of flat earthers). I'd rather those campaigns be replaced with "read a fucking history book" but there's no populist appeal there.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 24 2017 12:03 Nevuk wrote:
The only worse timeline for the GOP than the current one are if Hillary won and was assassinated during her inauguration by Steve Bannon wearing third Reich memorabilia and carrying signed orders from McConnell and Ryan ordering him to carry it out. Or if she died of a stroke an hour after inauguration, that would also have ruined their plans. I honestly can't think of a way Hillary could have won and lived that wouldn't have helped republicans in the mid-long term.
Another possibility for a worse timeline for the GOP would be exactly what is happening now, except without Hillary making occasional inane remarks to remind people just why it was that we were pushed into this very unfortunate situation. God knows Schumer and Pelosi already make it hard to forget.
|
On June 24 2017 11:38 Plansix wrote:
It has to be one of the most colorful, doubt ridden elections in US history. Bush v Gore got nothing on this shit. Claiming otherwise is just denying history.
I call your 2016 and raise you 1912. But IMO 1860 takes it by virtue of actually starting a war.
|
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning Dem strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been for the GOP. But it's a tool.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool.
What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much.
|
On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much.
Hmm? I didn't say it was the right thing to do. Only that trying to cast it as a strategic decision is incredibly disingenuous and deceitful.
If the Dems do try to take the moral high ground, it is *not* to their strategic advantage. Period. And that should be recognized and understood instead of some cajoling "oh it's really in your best interest it's not sacrificing advantages at all."
|
On June 24 2017 12:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. Hmm? I didn't say it was the right thing to do. Only that trying to cast it as a strategic decision is incredibly disingenuous and deceitful. If the Dems do try to take the moral high ground, it is *not* to their strategic advantage. Period. And that should be recognized and understood instead of some cajoling "oh it's really in your best interest it's not sacrificing advantages at all."
A strategic advantage would be a difference between the democrats and republicans and what they do in congress. throwing away everything obama did is not a positive no matter how you spin it.
|
On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much.
I think we're well beyond legitimizing all the Republicans did in the past. We accepted our two defeats at the hands of Obama, by and large, but now a large, vocal group has delegitimized his freely elected replacement for like eight months now. + Show Spoiler +
|
Taking the moral high ground has gotten them nothing. Revenge is not acceptable, but trying to compromise with the GOP has only gotten them burned. Bush era tax cuts, deregulation of media companies. The list goes on. And it isn't being obstructionist when the bill is poison pilled to start off. The Republicans want democrats to work with them, don't start the bills off at a point that would get any democrat primaried.
On June 24 2017 13:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. I think we're well beyond legitimizing all the Republicans did in the past. We accepted our two defeats at the hands of Obama, by and large, but now a large, vocal group has delegitimized his freely elected replacement for like eight months now. + Show Spoiler +
You do get to reap the rewards for those 6 years of obstruction. And denying Obama a supreme Court pick. Winning the election doesn't erase that. And the opening volley being the deepest cuts to medicare on top of tax cuts for millionaires only feeds the fires. The left is hysterical, the right is egging them on and loving it.
On June 24 2017 13:08 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 12:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. Hmm? I didn't say it was the right thing to do. Only that trying to cast it as a strategic decision is incredibly disingenuous and deceitful. If the Dems do try to take the moral high ground, it is *not* to their strategic advantage. Period. And that should be recognized and understood instead of some cajoling "oh it's really in your best interest it's not sacrificing advantages at all." A strategic advantage would be a difference between the democrats and republicans and what they do in congress. throwing away everything obama did is not a positive no matter how you spin it.
I fail to see why giving the GOP anything helps the Democrats. It could destroy their party at this point, which would be good for the GOP I guess. They did that with Bush and they got played. Why would they fall for that again? What has happened in the last 5 months that would make the Democrats trust the president or Congress? This headcare bill that is being slammed through without public hearings really says "You should work with us" to the democrats?
|
On June 24 2017 13:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. I think we're well beyond legitimizing all the Republicans did in the past. We accepted our two defeats at the hands of Obama, by and large, but now a large, vocal group has delegitimized his freely elected replacement for like eight months now. + Show Spoiler +
You realize that the current President spent years on a wild goose chase delegitimizing the freely elected President, right? That's exactly what we're talking about legitimizing here.
On June 24 2017 13:08 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 12:58 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. Hmm? I didn't say it was the right thing to do. Only that trying to cast it as a strategic decision is incredibly disingenuous and deceitful. If the Dems do try to take the moral high ground, it is *not* to their strategic advantage. Period. And that should be recognized and understood instead of some cajoling "oh it's really in your best interest it's not sacrificing advantages at all." A strategic advantage would be a difference between the democrats and republicans and what they do in congress. throwing away everything obama did is not a positive no matter how you spin it.
It's a negative for the country, but (quietly) stirring up a base as virulently anti-Trump based on flimsy logic as part of a larger strategy would hardly be a negative for the Dems strategically and doesn't really involve throwing away Obama's legacy. That base is probably part of why they overperformed the SC polls.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 24 2017 13:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 13:13 Danglars wrote:On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. I think we're well beyond legitimizing all the Republicans did in the past. We accepted our two defeats at the hands of Obama, by and large, but now a large, vocal group has delegitimized his freely elected replacement for like eight months now. + Show Spoiler + You realize that the current President spent years on a wild goose chase delegitimizing the freely elected President, right? That's exactly what we're talking about legitimizing here.
Is your goal to prove that your folk are no better than the unqualified dude who is now president? That won't do you any favors, politically or otherwise.
|
On June 24 2017 13:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 13:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 24 2017 13:13 Danglars wrote:On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. I think we're well beyond legitimizing all the Republicans did in the past. We accepted our two defeats at the hands of Obama, by and large, but now a large, vocal group has delegitimized his freely elected replacement for like eight months now. + Show Spoiler + You realize that the current President spent years on a wild goose chase delegitimizing the freely elected President, right? That's exactly what we're talking about legitimizing here. Is your goal to prove that your folk are no better than the unqualified dude who is now president? That won't do you any favors, politically or otherwise.
To be fair, there was never an FBI investigation into Obama's birth certificate.
People may have missed in that hearing about the hacking of voter rolls, but both the DNC and local republicans wanted nothing to do with the investigation. They were so invested in kicking the shit out of each other, they didn't even care about those hacks. And now that we are done with the honey moon, people are starting the "maybe the democrats should just try to get along. You had your protest, but its big kid time." But that isn't what happens when you elect Donald Trump as president.
|
On June 24 2017 13:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 13:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 24 2017 13:13 Danglars wrote:On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. I think we're well beyond legitimizing all the Republicans did in the past. We accepted our two defeats at the hands of Obama, by and large, but now a large, vocal group has delegitimized his freely elected replacement for like eight months now. + Show Spoiler + You realize that the current President spent years on a wild goose chase delegitimizing the freely elected President, right? That's exactly what we're talking about legitimizing here. Is your goal to prove that your folk are no better than the unqualified dude who is now president? That won't do you any favors, politically or otherwise.
No, my point is that Danglars' poor poor Republicans have done exactly what he talks about in the statement and he doesn't seem to recognize that fact. Not stooping to that level for the next six years would make Democrats better, not on a level playing field.
|
On June 24 2017 13:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 13:13 Danglars wrote:On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. I think we're well beyond legitimizing all the Republicans did in the past. We accepted our two defeats at the hands of Obama, by and large, but now a large, vocal group has delegitimized his freely elected replacement for like eight months now. + Show Spoiler + You realize that the current President spent years on a wild goose chase delegitimizing the freely elected President, right? That's exactly what we're talking about legitimizing here.
Yes, and he was shamed and birthers were never a major part of the Obama presidency. So they're totally different, if you can take the blinders off and simply observe. Both sides are wrestling in the dirt and nobody's on the high ground. Democrats only played nice with Obama in charge of the executive; they operate on a second set of rules when America rejects their candidate, as is obvious now.
|
On June 24 2017 13:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 13:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 24 2017 13:13 Danglars wrote:On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. I think we're well beyond legitimizing all the Republicans did in the past. We accepted our two defeats at the hands of Obama, by and large, but now a large, vocal group has delegitimized his freely elected replacement for like eight months now. + Show Spoiler + You realize that the current President spent years on a wild goose chase delegitimizing the freely elected President, right? That's exactly what we're talking about legitimizing here. Yes, and he was shamed and birthers were never a major part of the Obama presidency. So they're totally different, if you can take the blinders off and simply observe. Both sides are wrestling in the dirt and nobody's on the high ground. Democrats only played nice with Obama in charge of the executive; they operate on a second set of rules when America rejects their candidate, as is obvious now.
Democrats got smart and realized the Republicans don't operate in good faith. They are not getting doped into the Iraq war 2.0 or whatever nightmare this new congress cooks up to hang over the Democrats head for another 10 years.
|
On June 24 2017 13:31 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2017 13:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 24 2017 13:13 Danglars wrote:On June 24 2017 12:44 LegalLord wrote:On June 24 2017 12:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:
While I don't think the election was illegitimate per se, saying continuously raising stink about it is a poor strategy for the Democrats is fascinating in light of the fact that a man who spent half a decade raising stink about the legitimacy of a Democratic president based on complete fabrication is currently sitting in the White House. Bonus points because the man earnestly believes there were 3 million illegal votes in the 2016 election so he actually won the popular vote.
Kind of reminds me of people saying the Dems should sit down quietly and not obstruct GOP bills when it worked great for the past 8 years. Or that the left-leaning media should lean to the right after right-spinning media was a fulcrum in the GOP win.
Edit: Which is not to say I think running entirely on "the 2016 election was illegal" is a winning strategy any more than running on entirely on "Obama isn't a citizen" would have been. But it's a tool. What do you want to prove? That Democrats can be just as shitty, obstructionist, and petty as the Republicans whose petty, scummy obstructionism brought us here? All you will accomplish is to throw Obama's rhetoric of a moral high ground down the crapper and legitimize anything and everything that the Republicans have used as a tool against Democrats in the past. Evidently that that "why should we be any better than those pond scum" attitude will do wonders for that "revenge" against the GOP that you clearly hope for. Or maybe, just maybe, not so much. I think we're well beyond legitimizing all the Republicans did in the past. We accepted our two defeats at the hands of Obama, by and large, but now a large, vocal group has delegitimized his freely elected replacement for like eight months now. + Show Spoiler + You realize that the current President spent years on a wild goose chase delegitimizing the freely elected President, right? That's exactly what we're talking about legitimizing here. Yes, and he was shamed and birthers were never a major part of the Obama presidency. So they're totally different, if you can take the blinders off and simply observe. Both sides are wrestling in the dirt and nobody's on the high ground. Democrats only played nice with Obama in charge of the executive; they operate on a second set of rules when America rejects their candidate, as is obvious now.
I don't really see how he was shamed when he never publicly apologized, he managed to get into the polls in 2012 with decent numbers then did even better in 2016 despite continuing the claims, and I don't think he even walked back his twitter claims about his crack agents finding key evidence. If that's how Republicans shame, I really do need some new glasses, let alone take off my blinders.
I guess there was the joke about it from Romney if that counts. At least his campaign went on record saying they believed Obama was born in the U.S., unlike the current President okay to be fair I fact-checked myself and Trump did (finally) say at a September 16th debate Obama was born in the U.S., I'm wrong. He wouldn't say that the day earlier to WaPo, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
